Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 156 KB, 1344x742, 550580E3-F1B2-4701-9257-2EF251843BAA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
71837063 No.71837063 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

Is there any Linux without GPL clusterfuck? No software respects our freedom if it is not released under MIT/BSD license.

>> No.71837112

>MIT
>BSD

You oppressive brainlet!

Public domain is only free, all others saddle you with conditions

>> No.71837143

>>71837063
I think they call that freebsd, I wouldn't go down that dark and dangerous path.

>> No.71837177

>>71837063
>Wanting your free software to be rebranded, closed off and sold for a profit without you seeing a dime of it
That wouldn't happen if you stick with the GNU GPL v3

>> No.71837179

you must have suffered serious brain damage

>> No.71837323

>>71837063
imagine having cuck fetish so bad that you would hire 10 tyrones to please your wife
wow just wow

>> No.71837405

>>71837177
you dont lose the acces to the software, the source is always free and open, only the changes they make can be made closed. and its fair, as no one should be forced to give away its own code for free. there is no problem in selling for profit.
also linux is gpl and all things derivated from gpl must also be released under gpl. so there is no escaping gpl under linux. you need to go for BSDs if you want freedom

>> No.71837440

>>71837405
>there is no problem in selling for profit.
You missed the point of the fork being sold for profit, when you as the original creator will get nothing, not even recognition of your work (MIT allows this).

>> No.71837454

>>71837063
Linux itself is GPL, so I recommend a *BSD.
If you want a GNU-free distro, I recommend Alpine Linux.

>> No.71837480

>>71837454
Buddy was looking for GPL-free, not GNU-free.

>> No.71837494

>>71837480
Well then he should use *BSD.

>> No.71837515

>>71837440
if people think whattever changes are made on the fork is worth the money they will pay for it. if they like my code as it was before, they will donate to me. or take my code and use it for free.
all this selling does nothing if the changes are not worth the money without counting the part they can get for free from me

>> No.71837584

>>71837515
This.
You also forgot to mention that many forks will definitely contribute changes back because it's hard to maintain changes downstream.

>> No.71837589

>>71837515
You still ignore that you, as the original creator, will NEVER get any recognition for having created the original source, nor will you be able to fight for royalties or for recognition from the person who forked your code and closed its source afterwards. Then again, I don't expect retards to read properly.

>> No.71837601

>>71837405
BaSeD and redpilled.

>> No.71837614
File: 236 KB, 499x499, Stallman vs. BSD.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
71837614

>>71837601

>> No.71837623

>>71837589
>Will never get any recognition
Are you an idiot? Have you read the fucking BSD license that explicitly states that you must give recognition?
>I don't expect retards to read properly
Indeed, retard.

>> No.71837628

>>71837623
I was talking about MIT, not BSD.

>> No.71837717

>>71837063
MIT/BSD license does not respect freedom more than GPL. BSD OSes are primarily used by proprietary companies that do not give a shit about freedom.

>>71837405
GPL also allows selling for profit. The idea that you must give it away for free is a misconception.

>> No.71837783

>>71837717
GPL also allows to pirate software under GPL license.

>> No.71837791

>>71837783
I don't know what that means. Piracy refers to armed robbery on the high seas.

>> No.71837795

>>71837717
This.

The difference between GPL and MIT in particular is that MIT allows you to make a derivative with only the most minor change, hide its source and sell it without giving the original source's creator any credit or royalties.

GPL doesn't allow this; it requires due credit and/or royalties to be made to the original creator, as well as the derivative's code remaining openly accessible.

>> No.71837805

>>71837063
Linux itself is GPL you fucking retard.

>> No.71837806

>>71837063
you can select individual lincenses in gentoo but I'm not sure which are available as I don't care

>> No.71837807

>>71837717
>MIT/BSD license does not respect freedom more than GPL
They do, from a technical and legal standpoint, since they have less restrictions on code.
One may argue from a moral standpoint that the GPL is more 'free', but morality is a subjective topic that differs from person to person.
>BSD OSes are primarily used by proprietary companies
Oh really? Compare the number of corporations that use/contribute to Linux to the ones that use/contribute to *BSD, the numbers might burst your little bubble because *BSD is still mostly maintained by a community, instead of being mostly maintained by a corporation.
GPL software is still extremely profitable to corporations, and GPL evangelists can't do anything about it.

>> No.71837830

>>71837807
The GPL does not have any restrictions on the code, you are lying and spreading FUD.

GPL being profitable to corporations is a good thing. It isn't an anti-commercial license, the only ones pushing that idea are proprietary FUD spreaders like yourself.

>> No.71837859

>>71837830
>Does not have any restrictions
I hope that you're joking, because the entire foundation of the GPL is to restrict the code by forcing every fork/commit to be GPL. That's a restriction, other licenses don't have that restriction, therefore they are technically and legally more free.

>> No.71837891

>>71837859
No you are confused. That isn't a restriction on the code, it's a condition of the license. You need to learn the difference. If you'll actually read the license itself you'll see it says that you actually are not allowed to place any restrictions on the use of the code whatsoever.

>> No.71838009

>>71837891
I think that you're the confused one here
>if you'll actually read the license
Don't worry, I read it before.
>not allowed to place any restrictions.
No, the GPL doesn't allow you to place any *further* restrictions on the code (i.e. The only restrictions on the code are those already made by the GPL and you're not allowed to restrict the terms further)
In fact, further releases of the GPL (GPLv3) added even crazier restrictions by not only restricting the code itself, but by adding further restrictions to the environment where that code is running (i.e., what the refer to as "preventing Tivoization")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

>> No.71838058

>>71838009
So can you explain all the GPL software that lets you run Linux on UEFI computers?

>> No.71838059 [DELETED] 

>>71838009
The GPL does have restrictions. It has conditions. Not allowing it to run on a restricted device is a measure against other parties placing further restrictions on the code.

>> No.71838106

>>71838059
>Not allowing it to run on a restricted device is a measure against other parties placing further restrictions on the code.
Please explain >>71838058

I mean if that's a clause in GPL, why is there GPL software that lets users install Linux on UEFI computers, when UEFI was designed to restrict users to Windows 8+?

>> No.71838124

>>71838058
UEFI lets you install what you want by simply choosing to boot from it, therefore it's not violating GPLv3.

>> No.71838168

>>71838058
Aside from what was pointed out above, Linux is GPLv2, not GPLv3.

>> No.71838189

>>71838058
>GPL software
The UEFI firmware is not GPL software.

>> No.71838374

>>71838009
The GPL does not have restrictions. It has conditions. Not allowing it to run on a restricted device is a measure against other parties placing further restrictions on the code. I can see why you would try to spin it as a restriction if you intended to make the code proprietary. That's the point of the license.

It feels like I always have to bring it up in these threads, but the other problems is that if you follow the view that the GPL has restrictions, you also need to say that the BSD license has restrictions, because it also has some conditions that if you don't follow you lose your rights to the license. I personally don't think either of them have restrictions, a condition on use of the license is not necessarily a restriction, it just requires you to take some additional steps in order to comply.

>> No.71839032

>>71837614
>POSIX
>good
Pick one.

>> No.71839107

>>71837805
It took ages to find the biggest flaw inlinux, but you did it! Congrats!

>> No.71839115
File: 160 KB, 1170x836, 1518633762540.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
71839115

>> No.71839154

>>71837480
Almost all GNU software is GPL, though

>> No.71839169

>>71837177
they're literally software cucks, they want their big bull (the corporation) to fuck their wives for profit while they sit there jacking off in the corner

>> No.71839195
File: 789 KB, 2563x1440, ANOYNMOUS .png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
71839195

I AM ANOYNMOUS

>> No.71839221

IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ME THEN YOU
WILL GET A PONSHMENT

>> No.71839615

>>71837112
>WTFPL

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action